3 ms·
I wouldn't say "fascinating" so much as "irritating", as this is more about journalists wanting to get a juicy story where there isn't one, rather than a lesson
by madaxe_again 10y ago
I wouldn't say "fascinating" so much as "irritating", as this is more about journalists wanting to get a juicy story where there isn't one, rather than a lesson on human nature.
Statistically, autopilot is orders of magnitude safer than humans.
If there's a story here, it's about how the US doesn't require underrun protection on trucks, thus making them death traps, but that wouldn't be anywhere near as good for circulation as a "rise of the machines, they want to kill you" story.
- arghnoname 10y agoI don't think we can say statistically whether it is safer than humans right now or not.
- madaxe_again 10y ago150,000,000 miles on autopilot, one fatality. Humans, it's 66,000,000 miles per fatality, in the US. Admittedly the sample is small, but still, it suggests an advantage over humans.
- arghnoname 10y agoApples and oranges. The statistic you cite is all cars and roads, as far as I'm aware. High end vehicles with comparable safety features on roads where autopilot is likely to be engaged is more comparable. I wouldn't be surprised if autopilot is safer, but I think it is overstating things to say this is a statistical fact.
- kctess5 10y ago"Statistically" Source? I hear that it is imperfect software.
- random_upvoter 10y agoOne problem of automation is that when an algorithm fails it reverts to 100% stupid mode, without any fallback. In this particular case the program didn't understand there was a truck, so the car drove full speed into the truck. As a result, the outcome of accidents with AI driving, while rare, will probably tend to be rather gruesome and this might lead to some really bad reaction.